Michelle is an experienced commercial litigator who acts on a broad range of commercial disputes. She commenced practice in 2011 and has acted for a variety of individuals and entities including large corporates, banks, insolvency practitioners and insurers. Michelle has particular expertise in disputes involving professional liability, restructuring and insolvency, company law, trusts and property.
Read MoreInlet Storage Limited v United Movers Limited [2021] NZDC 23513[1]
Sections 268 and 269 of the Property Law Act 2007 exonerate tenants of property from liability for damage caused by a range of perils, including fire and flood, where the landlord has an insurance policy that covers the causative peril. Where that is the case, the tenant cannot be required to meet the costs of making good the destruction or damage, or to pay damages “in respect of” the same. The District Court recently considered the application of these sections beyond the leased premises to neighbouring properties.
Read MoreSignificant changes to New Zealand’s insurance laws are in the pipeline. Following public consultation on proposed changes in 2018 and 2019, Cabinet has made policy decisions on the key changes which are to occur to insurance law. Last month, MBIE released an exposure draft of the new Insurance Contracts Bill which aims to brings New Zealand closer into line with the policyholder-friendly changes which have already occurred in Australia and the United Kingdom. While further public consultation is invited, it appears much of the change has been already been decided.
Read MoreMerck & Co v Ace American Insurance Co No: UNN-L-2682-18
It is not often that courts have occasion to look at the construction of the ‘war risks’ exclusion. In a novel argument, the insurer relied on the war risks exclusion to deny cover to an insured for losses arising from a cyber attack. The Superior Court of New Jersey held that it did not apply. In doing so, it provided useful clarification of the meaning of the exclusion.
Read MorePenfold v The Hollard Insurance Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1322
Insurers and brokers are often presented with a difficult fact-specific question to resolve – is property within the physical and legal control of an insured? An insured’s legal responsibility will often turn on this, and so too may its coverage position. In this article we look at a recent Australian decision which held that property owners may have “control” of goods on their property even if they have not charged for storage and have not exercised any power over the goods.
With the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) recently wrapping up in Glasgow, we thought it timely to touch on some of the issues on the horizon for Aotearoa.COP26 is the first major test of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global pact to keep the earth’s temperature from rising beyond 1.5 degrees of pre-industrial levels
Read MoreWorkSafe New Zealand v Waste Management NZ Limited [2021] NZHC 3444
There are few decisions in New Zealand which have looked at what conduct will amount to recklessness in the context of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the Act). This is why the recent High Court decision, declining WorkSafe’s application for leave to appeal the District Court’s decision, is so important.
Read MoreBann Carraig Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc [2021] NIQB 63
This decision from the High Court of Northern Ireland is a cautionary tale for insureds not to delay too long after an insured peril before filing proceedings, and a reminder for insurers to consider potential limitation defences when faced with old claims.
Read MoreEdward joined Fee Langstone last month as a Senior Associate, after time working in both large and boutique practices in Auckland, and in London. He has a broad range of civil litigation experience and has assisted clients in resolving challenges that have included contractual disputes, regulatory prosecutions, insolvency and debt recovery issues, as well as property and trust disputes.
Read MoreWe are very pleased to announce that our very own Special Counsel Tom Pasley has been named as a NZ Lawyer Rising Star for 2022. The award is in recognition of outstanding “talent and commitment” of lawyers under 35
Read MoreThe Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2022 edition
We are thrilled to have received our best results ever in the Legal 500 rankings, and thank you to all our clients who participated in the process. We would like to share these results with you: we could not have achieved it without your support.
We are very pleased to announce that Fee Langstone was ranked as a Band 1 firm for Insurance in the Chambers Asia Pacific Rankings for 2022. Partners Philippa Fee and Pauline Davies were also singled out, with Philippa being named in Band 1 for Insurance and Pauline in Band 2 for Shipping. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the survey and provided feedback.
Read MoreIt wouldn't be Christmas without our non-human family members joining in on the fun and feasting. You may recall their starring roles in 2019's Twelve Dogs of Christmas.
This year there may not be a music video but they're still getting into the spirit!
Some of our silly pastimes during the holiday season.
Read MoreThe Right Reverend Nicholas Baines, Lord Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles & Gill [2021] EWCA Civ 1211
The English Court of Appeal recently considered whether claims brought against a law firm for the systematic fraud of one of its partners should be aggregated for the purposes of the limit of indemnity in the firm’s insurance policy. The English High Court’s judgment, upheld on appeal, was that the claims should not be aggregated and that each attracted a separate limit of indemnity.
Technology Swiss Pty Ltd v AAI Limited t/a Vero Insurance [2021] FCA 95
The Federal Court of Australia recently considered how to allocate between insurer and insured the proceeds of a recovery action against a third party. The case emphasises that an insurer has a right to share in the proceeds of a recovery action only to the extent that the insurer provides indemnity under the policy. Where the insurer pays a settlement to the insured for costs incurred by the insured which are not part of the indemnity provided by the policy then, absent a contractual right, the insurer has no right to share in the fruits of a recovery action. If the insurer wants to procure this right, it needs to ensure that the settlement agreement with the insured makes this clear.
Birchfield v Birchfield Holdings Limited [2021] NZCA 428
The Court of Appeal considered recently the issue of a minority shareholder’s rights in a case where the minority shareholder refused to accept buy-out offers and then claimed the company had acted in an unfairly prejudicial manner towards him. In so doing, the Court of Appeal also provided useful guidance on how the majority can use the summary judgment fast track procedure to buy out the minority.
Swiss Re International SE v LCA Marrickville Pty Limited [2021] FCA 1206
On 8 October 2021, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision on the second test case in Australia on business interruption response to COVID-19-related claims. Unlike the first test case,[1] the decision largely went the insurers’ way. Crucially, it also reached a very different conclusion from that reached by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in FCA v Arch UKSC Arch[2] in that country’s test case.
Read MoreAt Fee Langstone we’re experts in the field of insurance law. We are a team of skilled litigation lawyers, able to work with you to provide strategies and robust solutions, fast.
Fee Langstone
Tel. +64 9 373 0050
Level 18, 51 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010
reception@feelangstone.co.nz
Fee Langstone at Ruby Black
201-203 High Street
Christchurch
